Stealing the blinds on Party Poker

[BeauKooJack]

I was playing Hold Em' on a $1-$2 table on Party Poker the other night and an interesting scam went down. I was in seat 7. The player in seat 5 would sit out whenever he was to be the Small Blind. It seems if you sit out the Small Blind on Party Poker there is no penalty to come back in on the next hand. The player in seat 6 who would have been the Big Blind now became the Small Blind. He also sat out. Since he was now sitting out the Small Blind there was no penalty for him to come back on the next hand. Thus he avoided paying any Blinds at all. I didn't choose to sit out any hands but I became the Small Blind and never had to post a Big Blind all night. I figure I played about 150 hands posting only the Small Blind once every 10 hands and saved about 15 bucks. Of course this was very unfair to the other players at the table who of course had to post Blinds more often. I contacted Party Poker to alert them to this.
Now my question is what is the solution to this problem?

[TwoShedsJackson]

You wait for Party to take note of the problem and update their software. This will take approximately 85 years.

[guppy]

Don't know a solution to this problem at Party, other than for them to correct their software.

The way the blinds SHOULD work is that you should have to post a BB and SB every round. If you miss your SB, you have to post a small blind to get back in. If the small blind leaves then the player who would have been big blind should still post a BB, as does the player to his left (2 BB, no SB this hand). The next hand both BB players from this hand will post small blinds (BB, SB, and a SB posted on the button). On the next hand everything is normal.

[Yads]

No I believe the way it works is there is no small blind only a big blind when a player who should be the small blind sits out. Now as far as a penalty I thought they would have to post to get back in the game. That's the way it works on UB anyway.

[zuluking]

He's right. I just tried it and came back in the CO with no penalty. Is it cheating to do this? Or is one just taking advantage of a software error.

[GrannyMae]

Is it cheating to do this?

this is a great question.

first, i would think this bug needs to be fixed ASAP cuz many would not care if it were cheating or not if the software allowed it.

i'd be interested to know why this is the first time i read about this? it seems like the guy playing in seat 6 that never had to post a single blind is playing at a huge advantage. this is like playing 7 stud with no antes. you can't find these games much anymore but when you do it is a tightass game. i guess you have to have the guy on your right sitting out his SB in order for you to be able to play for "free".

i would be as equally concerned that these 2 are playing with some sort of agreement or knowledge of each other and thus are more likely to be colluders as well.

this be a badass bug imo.

edit: i have seen the bug where you come in behind the button after missing the SB with no penalty, but i had no clue there was a way to play without posting at all.

[zuluking]

Would you consider it a +EV to not pay the SB and give up the button every round?

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you consider it a +EV to not pay the SB and give up the button every round?

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, from a purely statistical point of view (according to PT), I'd say no.

EV/hand from the button: 0.09
EV/hand from the SB: -0.07

So, I'm losing 0.02BB/round if I do this.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you consider it a +EV to not pay the SB and give up the button every round?

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, from a purely statistical point of view (according to PT), I'd say no.

EV/hand from the button: 0.09
EV/hand from the SB: -0.07

So, I'm losing 0.02BB/round if I do this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, I'm losing .06BB/round if I do it. (.13-.06).

Rob

[itsmesteve]

you're losing .06 BB a round but what is that. I play .5/1 so that's 6 cents, the blind is 25 cents. that makes it EV + no? what am i missing?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
you're losing .06 BB a round but what is that. I play .5/1 so that's 6 cents, the blind is 25 cents. that makes it EV + no? what am i missing?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, NET I'm losing if I do this. I win too much on the button to skip my turn on the button.

Rob

[GrannyMae]

Would you consider it a +EV to not pay the SB and give up the button every round?

no, that's been discussed to death for years here when all this software came out with all these bugs. i would however think it is EV+ to play blind-free

that's the REAL problem with this bug. the guy in the 6 seat, not the guy in the 5 seat.

[BeauKooJack]

I agree. The guy in seat 5 only saved half a bet and came back two seats away from the button. But I think I had the best of it in seat 7. Seat six paid no blinds but never had the button. I saved a bet (only half a bet less than seat 6) and gave up nothing.

[GrannyMae]

Seat six paid no blinds but never had the button.

this is the guy with the best of it.

gimme UTG only (1 hand per orbit), and let me play for free and it still has to be EV+

[Mike Haven]

Is it cheating to do this? Or is one just taking advantage of a software error.

A couple of years ago Ray Zee said here that using all ins to not call bets were ok in his book if the software allowed it for everyone equally.

[mosta]

I didn't think this worked at limits I've been playing, and I just reconfirmed: at 10-20 Party full table if you post BB then sit out SB, you can come in in CO for a BB (so you lose 2 hands and pay as penalty the diff between BB and SB). Must work only up through the micro limits, or so.

[Fraubump]

Oddly, the much reviled crypto software, is the only software that does blinds right: you never get to skip any blinds there if the player in front of you leaves or busts.

[M.B.E.]

As far as I can tell, the software at both PokerStars and Party is programmed to find someone to post the small blind first, then look for someone to post the big blind. This is how people can sometimes skip the big blind. The software really should get the big blind out there before worrying about the small blind. I assume that they can't fix this without digging deep into the guts of the software because surely otherwise they would have done it already.

[KC50]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it cheating to do this? Or is one just taking advantage of a software error.

A couple of years ago Ray Zee said here that using all ins to not call bets were ok in his book if the software allowed it for everyone equally.

[/ QUOTE ]


IMHO, allin abuse is cheating no matter how you put it. If not then why don't B&M cardrooms allow us to go allin with chips still in front of us if we don't want to call a bet on any round.

Sorry Mike. But with all do respect for you as a long time poster here at 2+2 I just can't imagine Ray saying this.

Kind Regards,

KC

[M.B.E.]

I searched the archives for Ray Zee's posts on various keywords (such as "allin" (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Words=allin&Sea rchpage=0&Limit=25&where=bodysub&newerval=6&newert ype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&daterange=1&bodyprev=1& Name=6)) and could not find anything about disconnect protection issues.

[AA suited]

doesnt work at party $25 Pot-limit. i skipped small blind and came back as CO, but asked me for $0.50 post.

which tables does it work?

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
I searched the archives for Ray Zee's posts on various keywords (such as "allin" (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Words=allin&Sea rchpage=0&Limit=25&where=bodysub&newerval=6&newert ype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&daterange=1&bodyprev=1& Name=6)) and could not find anything about disconnect protection issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did say it.